Talk:Stadtholder

The meaning of Stadtholder

I disagree that it actually would matter what the word 'stadtholder' ('Stadhouder') means in modern Dutch. The meaning of the word has not changed, even though the meaning of its components has. The meaning 'city holder' makes no sense in the historical context explained in the article. I would like to see someone prove that 'city holder' should be the actual translation. Otherwise, I feel it should be changed back again to 'place holder'. This previously unsigned comment (sorry) was made by: Tom 10:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

yes, if you compare cognates in other Germanic languages like German, the most likely meaning is indeed "placeholder", German "(an)statt" akin to English "(in)stead". And if you compare it with what they say in the Dutch version: "Het woord stadhouder betekent letterlijk plaatsbekleder (Duits: Statthalter), net als overigens het uit het Frans afkomstige woord luitenant (lieutenant, 'lieu' = plaats, 'tenant' = houdend)." This even suggests that it is a calque of French Lieutenant which literally means "Place-holder" as well. Crix 14:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed simply a direct translation.--MWAK 13:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, i do think that we should mention both translations, in fact "plaatsbekleder" is the name of a person that rules an area that could be called a city, (Dutch: stadhouder betekend voor Nederlanders een persoon die de orde behoudt (leiding geeft) in een stad, niet in een dorp, gehucht of provincie, maar een stad, en eventueel het gebied om die stad. En ik weet dat de geschiedenis boeken dit liever niet zo noemen, maar eigenlijk is de burgemeester er min of meer van afgeleid) te best translation (i think) would be mayor or Governor. --Rick Smit 10:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, "stad" in "stadhouder" is not directly derived from the meaning of "stad" as "city", but from the more general meaning of "location" or "place"; the folk etymology is irrelevant here.--MWAK 13:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The original meaning of the word "Stadt" may have been better preserved in German than in Dutch. From the dictionary I get is the following:

does not take place -- findet nicht statt

in his place -- an seiner statt

instead -- statt dessen

instead -- statt dessen; dafuer

instead of -- statt

instead of -- statt dessen

instead of -- statt; anstatt

it takes place -- es findet statt

please send us instead -- bitte senden sie statt dessen

the exhibition will include... -- im Rahmen der Ausstellung finden... statt;

this fair takes place in Frankfurt -- diese Messe findet in Frankfurt statt

to declare on oath -- Eides Statt

It looks like that the German word "Statt" is more related to "instead" or a place (or position) as in "replacement", than with a city or a location.
The closest translation of "Stadtholder" I can come up with is "Replacement" or "Substitute", i.e. someone who replaces the king or boss, or perhaps "Representative", someone who represents the king. See also Synonym for locum tenens JdH 15:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Also one has to take into contemplation that the word stadt in the English word stadtholder is not a Netherlandish ("Dutch") but a German(!) word/spellingvariant: die Stadt (singular), die Städte (plural) in German compared to de stad (singular), de steden (plural) in Netherlandish. Both the German word Stadt as the Netherlandish word stad nowadays refer to either a town(!!!) or a city: so the translation city holder is definitely incorrect, because it might also be translated as a town holder. The title Stadtholder therefore quite clearly is an equivalent of "lieutenant": reading Netherlandish and German sources would leave no other option at all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amand Keultjes (talk • contribs) 17:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Split

Is there a separate article on the office of a steward so far? No. Should this article be spli? Not at present. This is the English article corresponding to nl:Stadhouder and de:Statthalter. The English translation of these terms is "steward". All three articles treat the Low Countries case as a section. The article for the rank in the Low Countries in particular would be Stadtholders in the Low Countries, which at present redirects to a list article, but which could be independent. dab (𒁳) 15:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It turns out that there is allready an article Statthalter that discusses the office in Austria. There is also a Steward (office) that discusses the general concept. So it turns out that there are 3 articles on pretty much the same subject? Perhaps Statthalter and Steward (office) should be merged with this article to create a more comprehensive article on the concept and office of Stadtholder, similar to de:Statthalter, in which the Dutch Stadtholders and Drots would be a section. There have of course been similar offices in other times and places, such as Satrap and Prefect. Suggestions are appreciated. JdH 18:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

if we're going to merge the articles, the result should obviously reside at the English title, "steward". As it is, this article is the main article of the "Dutch" section at steward (office) -- I don't see the problem. We have a main article, observing WP:SS, and regional sub-articles such as this one. dab (𒁳) 17:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed edits

Though I have no problem with most of the article in its present form, I think there are a few minor points that need correction. I'll propose those here first, before attempting the edits, so as not to act precipitously.

First of all: the word "stadtholder" is an English word, which is derived from the Dutch "stadhouder", but has its own denotation in English: it refers to the office in the Dutch Republic and should be reserved for that meaning. It is true that the Dutch word has its own etymology and it is also true that there were different types of "stadhouders" in different times and different countries. But that is immaterial to this article that is about the Englisch concept "stadtholder." I think we could therefore drop the connotation "steward" and stop worrying about the question whether the article should be merged with the article on "steward", or be part of a cluster under that concept. [If I may be allowed to digress: there is a similar problem with the related English expression "high and mighty." This is a (bad) translation of the Dutch honorific for the States-General: hoogmogenden, which actually would be better translated with "very mighty lords." However, the bad translation has become the common English expression (just like the "t" in "stadtholder" has become part of the English word). We can deplore this, but there it is:-)] All of this is just to say that we need to get rid of the word "steward" in the article. The historical development described in the article of course needs to stay to explain how the Republican office came to be. It might be useful to point out that in other countries similar offices existed, that even had superficially similar names (like "statthalter"), but I think that those would be translated as "governor," not as "stadtholder."

The material edits concern the minor matter that in Zeeland the stadtholder was not the First Noble, but that the Prince of Orange (who was also Marquess of Veere and Vlissingen) had that position as a consequence of holding these feudal titles. As since William the Silent all stadtholders of Zeeland happen to have been Princes of Orange, the person holding the office of stadtholder coincidentally also held the dignity of First Noble (except for the short period in which William III was allowed to assume that dignity, while not yet stadtholder). Formally First Noble was not an accoutrement of the office of stadtholder. Incidentally, the First Noble in Zeeland only represented himself, as Zeeland did not have a ridderschap. At the start of the First Stadtholderless Period William III was deprived of his seat in the States as First Noble. Other Zeeland nobles then tried to form a ridderschap to take this seat, but they were denied by the Zeeland States.

More important is the objection against the current assertion that after the Orangist revolution of 1747 the Republic became a Monarchy. We have to be careful with bandying terms about. A monarchy is a form of government where sovereignty resides in one person. The Dutch Republic became de jure a Republic in 1588 (from a monarchy) when the provincial States and the States-General assumed sovereignty. This did not change in 1747 (or later during the lifetime of the Republic). What changed was that the office of stadtholder was made hereditary in the House of Orange-Nassau. However, that office had already been hereditary in the House of Nassau-Dietz in Friesland and Groningen/Drenthe since 1675 and in the House of Orange (extinct in 1702) in Holland and Zeeland around the same time. This was therefore not a new development. The fact that it was made to stick in Holland after William IV's death (unlike after William III's death) arguably was. And this latter development was a function of the fact that the political position of the stadtholder and his party was so much stronger after 1747 than before. But formally, little had changed, certainly on the point of sovereignty. The Netherlands only became a monarchy under the Kingdom of Holland, and again when William VI became "sovereign prince" (note the pointed qualifier) in 1813.

All of this would amount to only small edits in the article, but the import would be great, so I thought it right to put these points up for discussion first.--Ereunetes (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with the second point.

If by your first point you merely want to indicate that a merge with Steward is undesirable, I also agree. However, the etymology and reference to comparable institutions would of course be necessary elements of the article.

Your third point is more problematical: it seems to forget that the article merely claimed that the Republic had become a de facto monarchy. This is a claim often made; should it be considered controversial, then the controversy in the secondary sources should be referred to.--MWAK (talk) 08:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with all your points. The third point is the most important. I think the article would benefit by a short exposition of the controversy, especially about the repercussions it had during the stadtholdership of William V (i.e. the restoration of "his rights" by the Prussians in 1787 and more generally the confusion it caused among foreigners like John Adams, who presented his credentials to the President of the sovereign States General in the morning, and met the same gentleman in the servile role of chamberlain when he paid a courtesy visit on the Stadtholder in the afternoon).--Ereunetes (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Please change it as you see fit. Your knowledge of the subject probably vastly exceeds mine :o).--MWAK (talk) 10:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion in "decline" section

I deleted the new paragraph about the alleged use of the title in a "government in exile" because I think these allegations are insufficiently supported and appear mostly to have been inserted as a kind of advertisement for a new article on a "government in exile of the Dutch Republic" which in my view is mostly in the realm of fantasy. It may be true that William V used the title during his exile after the office was abolished by the Batavian Republic, but the remainder of the deleted paragraph is completely at variance with historical reality. I am all for freedom of speech, but we must maintain some standards in wikipedia and not allow our private views on history, or how it should have been written, to interfere with well-founded information.--Ereunetes (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Crowned republic

Wikipedia defines 'crowned republic' as:

A crowned republic is a form of constitutional monarchy where the monarch's role is ceremonial and all the royal prerogatives are prescribed by custom and law in such a way that the monarch has little or no discretion over governmental and constitutional issues.

I feel that this was not the case with stadtholders at all, especially after 1747. We should rethink the use of this word in this context. 83.83.1.229 (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The Dutch Republic seems to be a perfect example of the opposite of a crowned republic; officially a republic, but with a monarch-like figure with a lot of power. We could replace crowned republic with monarchy-like republic or something along those lines. Luxorr (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I think too it's the opposite. I support 'Monarchy-like republic'. --Watisfictie (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Norway

I believe that under Danish / Swedish rule the King of Denmark / Sweden's "lord lieutenant" in Norway held the title 'stattholder. Might it be appropriate to add to the present article a section dealing with this? -- Picapica (talk) 11:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

each what?

In the 15th century the Dukes of Burgundy acquired most of the Low Countries, and these Burgundian Netherlands mostly each had their own stadtholder.

Each what? Each of the "Provinces" listed in the linked article? —Tamfang (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Wrong etymology?

As others have said before, almost 15 years ago, the etymology suggested here is at best what could be called benignly confused. The fact that in modern Dutch it can be (incorrectly) read as meaning "city holder" is not the actual definition regardless. Consider the Dutch version of this article for a better text. 82.73.184.198 (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)